Analysis ofIstat according to that85% of 2.9 billion intended to cut the second rate Irpef regulated in the 2026 APBN Law ends with the family two fifths higher in income distribution? “Methodologically, this is not an analysis adherent to the Irpef system” because it “includes a family dimension” while income tax is “personal” and “the redistributive evaluation should be done on individual incomenot on the family”. Words of the deputy minister responsible for taxation Maurizio Leowith whom in the interview Sunday 24 Hours declassifying statistical agency calculations regarding the impact of interventions. Argues that “references to equal income“, size disposable family income correct for the size and composition of the core,” is inconsequential“That’s irrelevant.
An institution headed by a statistician Francesco Maria Chelli did not comment. However, as we will see later, the Deputy Minister’s objection was reasonable. If the aim is to estimate groups of tax beneficiaries, then individual analysis is clearly necessary, but when – as in the case of the Istat hearing – the aim is to understand who really benefits From a reduction in overall economic well-being, looking at family size is the standard methodology adopted by all major models microsimulationfrom thatParliamentary Budget Office with the European Commission euro mod. Which uses equivalent family income as its indicator, that is, what each individual would have to have – if he lived alone – to achieve the same standard of living as in the family. These data, obtained from surveys of living conditions in Italy and Europe, allow us to compare family income levels with different family sizes. And to understand, after sorting the core in ascending order by income, how the benefits generated by a particular measure are distributed.
The argument that it cannot be used to evaluate the consequences of personal income tax changes is very different from the fact that it is the same Finance Department from Ministry of Economyin a January 2022 note on the “redistributive effects of Irpef and the single benefit reform” launched by the government Dragoncalculated the impact per tenth of equivalent family income using their model Ben-DF Tax. “The overall redistributive effect is calculated for different family groups in terms of average benefits and incidence of benefits on income,” explains the document from the Directorate of Economic and Fiscal Research and Studies.
Deputy Minister of FdI spoke with Sun then tried to reverse the narrative of this maneuver by explaining that around 13.6 million taxpayers were affected by the Irpef mini adjustment “about three-quarters of them declared an income of less than 50,000 euros“, so “this is an intervention calibrated on central block income distribution”. It doesn’t matter if, as calculated by Istat, the benefit will stop at 102 euros for families in those countries. first fifth and will be 411 euros per year for those who declare more. “For taxpayers whose income is greater than 200 thousand euros – about 0.1% of the total – the measure is compensated by remodulation cuttingwhich partly sterilizes benefits while maintaining tax progressivity”, argued the deputy minister. However, he ignored the tax analysis.Parliamentary Budget Office according to which the intervention actually only concerns 32% of that income group (others either have no deductions to reduce, or have already seen such deductions eliminated through previous measures). Thus, “the average net benefit for taxpayers with income exceeding 200,000 euros is 379 eurosvalue close to the theoretical maximum of 440 euros”.
